Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:55:10.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Infectivity of entomopathogenic nematodes against the legume pod-borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius, infesting pigeon pea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2021

R. Pervez*
Affiliation:
Division of Nematology, ICAR – Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India
U. Rao
Affiliation:
Division of Nematology, ICAR – Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India
*
Author for correspondence: R. Pervez, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The legume pod-borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) (LPB), is an important insect pest of pigeon pea. Chemical pesticides are generally employed to manage this pest, but because of the soil residue issues and other environmental hazards associated with their use, biopesticides are also in demand. Another benign alternative is to use entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) to manage this vital pest. In the present study, the infectivity of ten native EPNs was evaluated against LPB by assessing their penetration and production in the LPB. The effectiveness of the promising EPNs against second-, third- and fourth-instar LPB larvae was also studied. Heterorhabditis sp. (Indian Agricultural Research Institute-Entomopathogenic Nematodes Rashid Pervez (IARI-EPN RP) 06) and Oscheius sp. (IARI-EPN RP 08) were found to be most pathogenic to LPB, resulting in about 100% mortality within 72 h, followed by Steinernema sp. (IARI-EPN RP 03 and 09). Oscheius sp. (IARI-EPN RP 04) was found to be the least pathogenic to LPB larva with 67% mortality. Maximum penetration was exhibited by Heterorhabditis sp. (IARI-EPN RP 06) followed by Oscheius sp. (IARI-EPN RP 08), whereas the lowest rate of penetration was exhibited by Oscheius sp. (IARI-EPN RP 01). The highest rate of production was observed with Oscheius sp. (IARI-EPN RP 08), followed by Oscheius sp. (IARI-EPN RP 04 and 10). Among the tested instars of the LPB larvae, second-instar larvae were more susceptible to EPNs, followed by third- and fourth-instar larvae. The results indicate that Heterorhabditis sp. (IARI-EPN RP 06) and Oscheius sp. (IARI-EPN RP 08) have a good potential to the manage LPB.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ali, SS, Pervez, R, Hussain, MA and Ahmad, R (2008) Susceptibility of three lepidopteran pests to five entomopathogenic nematodes and in vivo mass production of these nematodes. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection 41(4), 300304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banu, JG, Jothi, BD and Narkhedkar, NG (2007) Susceptibility of different stages of cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to entomopathogenic nematodes. International Journal of Nematology 17(1), 4145.Google Scholar
Blanco-Pérez, R, Bueno-Pallero, FA, Neto, L and Campos-Herrera, R (2017) Reproductive efficiency of entomopathogenic nematodes as scavengers. Are they able to fight for insect's cadavers? Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 148, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boemare, N (2002) Biology, taxonomy and systematics of Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus. pp. 3556 in Gaugler, R (Ed.) Entomopathogenic nematology. Wallingford, UK, CABI Publishing, CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, H and Kurup, NK (1988) Techniques for mass production of Sturmiopsis inferens Tns. pp. 8792 in David, H and Easwaramoorthy, S (Eds) Biocontrol technology for sugarcane pest management. Coimbatore, India, Sugarcane Breeding Institute.Google Scholar
Dunphy, GB and Webster, RB (1991) Antihaemocytic surface components of Xenorhabdus nematophilus var. dutki and their modification by serum of non-immune larva of Galleria mellonella. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 58, 4051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elawad, SA, Gowen, SR and Hague, NGM (2001) Progeny production of Steinernema abbasi in lepidopterous larvae. International Journal of Pest Management 47(1), 1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAOSTAT (2018) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2018, 02-28. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize.Google Scholar
Georgis, R and Gaugler, R (1991) Predictability in biological control using entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Economic Entomology 84, 713720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karunakar, G, Easwaramoorthy, S and David, H (1999) Susceptibility of nine lepidopteran insects to Steinernema glaseri, S. feltiae and Heterorhabditis indicus infection. International Journal of Nematology 9, 6871.Google Scholar
Kaya, H and Gaugler, R (1993) Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annual Review of Entomology 38, 181206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaya, HK and Stock, SP (1997) Techniques in insect nematology. pp. 281324 in Lacey, LA (Ed.) Manual of techniques in insect pathology. San Diego, CA, Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, B, Javed, N, Khan, SA, Rajput, NA, Atiq, M, Jabbar, A, Rehman, A, Moosa, A and Ali, MA (2020) Potential of Entomopathogenic Nematode (Steinernema kraussei) against last instar larvae of different lepidopteran insect pests. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 52(4), 12751281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patil, J and Rangasamy, V (2018) Field evaluation of the entomopathogenic nematodes against the white grub, Leucopholis lepidophora Blanchard (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control 28(1), 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patil, J, Rangasamy, V, Nagesh, M and Holajjer, P (2019) Biocontrol potential of entomopathogenic against Phyllognathus dionysius Fabricius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Biological Control 104, 98103.Google Scholar
Pervez, R (2010) Biocontrol potential of entomopathogenic nematodes against different instar larvae of gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera infesting chickpea. Current Nematology 21(2), 1721.Google Scholar
Pervez, R and Ali, SS (2009) Infectivity of Spodoptera litura (F.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) by certain native entomopathogenic nematodes and their penetration in test insect and in vivo production. Trends in Biosciences 2(2), 7073.Google Scholar
Pervez, R and Ali, SS (2011) Efficacy, penetration and in vivo production of entomopathogenic nematodes against legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Pyrilidae). Trends in Biosciences 4(1), 103105.Google Scholar
Pervez, R and Rao, U (2018) Eco-friendly management of lepidopteran insect pests through entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Biological Control 32(3), 172178.Google Scholar
Pervez, R, Ali, SS and Ahmad, R (2007) Efficacy of some entomopathogenic nematodes against mustard saw fly and in vivo production of these nematodes. International Journal of Nematology 17(1), 5558.Google Scholar
Pervez, R, Eapen, SJ, Devasahayam, S and Jacob, TK (2012) Efficacy of some entomopathogenic nematodes against insect pests of ginger and their multiplication. Nematologia Mediterranea 40(1), 3944.Google Scholar
Randhawa, HS and Verma, AK (2011). Evaluation of pigeon pea genotypes for their resistance against pod borer, Maruca testulatis Geyer under natural conditions. Paper presented in Third Insect Science Congress, organized by Indian Society for the Advancement of Insect Science, organized by Indian Society for the Advancement of Insect Science, PAU, Ludhiana, 18–20 April 2011.Google Scholar
Ricci, M, Glazer, I and Gaugler, R (1996) Entomopathogenic nematodes infectivity assay: comparison of laboratory bioassay. Biocontrol Sciences and Technology 6, 235245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, DI, Mizell, RF III and Cambell, JF (2002) Susceptibility of the plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar, to entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Nematology 34(3), 246249.Google Scholar
White, GF (1927) A method for obtaining infective nematode larvae from cultures. Science 66, 302303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed